Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Back to the moon!

semioticrobotic

01:05 / 20.09.05

Looks like NASA is planning another moon mission:

"The United States will send four astronauts to the moon in 2018 in a return to its pioneering manned mission into space, NASA administrator Michael Griffin announced.

NASA is to design a new rocket based on the technology from its ageing shuttles that are to be retired in 2010, Griffin said Monday. The new rocket could be orbiting in space by 2014."

Because I'm a sci-fi nerd, I always experience knee-jerk excitement about this sort of thing. A moon base! Then the realist in me smacks the sci-fi part of me in the face and says: "Your Asmovian wet dream is going to cost this country $104 billion?!"

With the US trade deficit being what it is, I'm not sure how appropriate this is right now. And when it should really be returning to the Earth, should the US government be craning its neck toward the sky?

04:13 / 20.09.05

What's the point in going back to the moon? We've already done that, like, 40 years ago. If we aren't colonizing the place, then I think we should set our sights a little higher.

Like the Sun.

09:15 / 20.09.05

You know China plan a dark side observatory? I suspect that's why the US are now going back- China is the new Russia...

11:41 / 20.09.05

I thought we were going to Mars. Is the Moon the new Mars?

Tryphena Absent

12:14 / 20.09.05

A replacement for the Space Shuttle would be a nice idea. Hello? NASA? I thought you were meant to be brilliant minds?

15:20 / 20.09.05

Surely a mission to the moon has to involve a replacement for the space shuttle? I didn't think they had the capability to reach the moon.
But yeah, you would think a platform that allows you to keep the ISS going would be more of a priority, especially considering how much it has cost so far.

16:57 / 20.09.05

Well, it's a very brief article, but it appears that the NASA director is talking about building a moon colony. This would be a very useful thing -- it's harder to get to than the ISS, but could do things (as far as acting as a step out into space) that the ISS can't.

Hmm.

The NASA homepage has a more in-depth report.

It's very heavy on the PR, but basically it seems like Mr. Griffen is really talking about building a new kind of space ship to replace the shuttle fleet:

The centerpiece of this system is a new spacecraft designed to carry four astronauts to and from the moon, support up to six crewmembers on future missions to Mars, and deliver crew and supplies to the International Space Station.

The new crew vehicle will be shaped like an Apollo capsule, but it will be three times larger, allowing four astronauts to travel to the moon at a time.

The new spacecraft has solar panels to provide power, and both the capsule and the lunar lander use liquid methane in their engines. Why methane? NASA is thinking ahead, planning for a day when future astronauts can convert Martian atmospheric resources into methane fuel.

The new ship can be reused up to 10 times. After the craft parachutes to dry land (with a splashdown as a backup option), NASA can easily recover it, replace the heat shield and launch it again.

The rest of it seems to me like he's just selling the new ship.

What's interesting is that it looks like a space ship and not an airplane:

Which, now that I think about it, is probably a good thing.

There are links in that article to a Flash tour of the proposed ship.

22:38 / 20.09.05

However there are a fair few voices to conteract the spin of the NASA machine including this article

It's kind of interesting, and refreshing, to look behind the proud boasts of the US space programme. The costs are immense, and it is a situation that is exacbated the contrasting long term goals that NASA has to plan for to realise and the short term priorities of Presidents and congress...

harmonic series

00:03 / 21.09.05

I think this is probably a good thing, trying to put a space station on the moon. If we (little humans, U.S. scientists or whatever) want to further our space-exploration capabilities, then this is definitely the necessary first step. As far as the money that's going to be sunk into it, maybe it will pull away some funding from weapons programs. I am, though, concerned about possible unforeseen environmental impacts and unpublicized reasons for having a space station on the moon.

06:18 / 21.09.05

maybe it will pull away some funding from weapons programs - you don't seriously think this has more than a snowball's chance in hell of happening do you?

08:03 / 21.09.05

I can't see the space program pulling money away from the military budget. Part of the reason for this is that American space exploration has always been linked to the military-industrial complex to one degree or another. Technological merits aside, the initial programs were fueled by a fear of orbiting Soviet satellites armed with nuclear weapons.

A trip to the Moon, whilst an impressive feat, isn't really necessary if all they're going to do is collect a few rock samples and wave the flag. That kind of thing can be done far more efficiently, cheaply, and safely, with unmanned probes.

However, since Bush's declaration last year of US intentions to establish a functioning moonbase, it can be argued that a return trip would allow NASA to begin the process of testing new technologies that will allow long-term survival of humans on the planned moonbase.

The Moon has always been seen as an important stepping stone to the other planets. Any attempt to land humans on Mars would be better launched from there.

Sjaak at the Shoe Shop

08:57 / 21.09.05

The Moon has always been seen as an important stepping stone to the other planets. Any attempt to land humans on Mars would be better launched from there

Why would that be?
A moonbase would be extremely vulnerable, and while gravity is less, it will still be an issue, requiring a launcher.
If you are going to bring up components from earth and assemble in space (or on the moon) would a space station in a high orbit (not like ISS) not be a better option?

But more to the point, I dont really see a need for manned spaceflight at this stage. What are humans going to add vs unmanned exploration? Or what essential work are humans going to do on the moon that cannot be automated?

Manned spaceflight costs a fortune, money which in my opinion is better spent on unmanned exploration (faster, further, and safer) and further development of space technology. I can understand the desire for the PR, but the cost of this program seems a bit steep just for that.

09:34 / 21.09.05

A space station would be the first logical step. However any ship being launched from Earth orbit still has to fight against the gravity of Earth. The minimal gravity of the Moon means less energy needs to be expended to launch objects and vessels. One potentially cheap example of a Moon-based launching system would be a mass driver.

The main advantage of establishing a presence on the Moon would be as a testbed for future colonisation of other planetary bodies in the solar system. It's proximity to Earth means that it will be easier to support and aid any colonisation efforts in the initial stages. Hopefully it would stimulate advances in the technologies to make colonisation of other planets easier.

10:46 / 21.09.05

One potentially cheap example of a Moon-based launching system would be a mass driver.

...and if you have a giant Gauss gun on the moon you can use it to send Lunar ores, low gee constructed products etc. not only to Earth but also to these space stations. A lunar supply base makes much more sense to support LaGrange situated space stations and asteroid belt mining operations, *if* there's a functioning colony there. It's a long term project to support other long term projects.

Tryphena Absent

15:14 / 21.09.05

Or what essential work are humans going to do on the moon that cannot be automated?

Basically you can dig deeper. Literally. That's why a return trip came up in the first place. I don't particulary understand why they want to build a base on the moon but I suspect it may possibly be a conspiracy to save the leaders of the western world from Climate Change.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

18:04 / 21.09.05

Aha. It's Alternative Three, isn't it? Someone pass me my foil hat.

00:35 / 22.09.05

I thought we were going to Mars. Is the Moon the new Mars?

no, m'lud, the moon is the new antartica, which is the new africa...

(and black is the new grey when grey was the new black...)

10:35 / 22.09.05

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't any plan to make use of the moon's lower gravity for firing ships off into space more efficiently require moon-based manufacture of, well, pretty much everything?

Otherwise you'll still need rockets humping stuff from earth to the moon making moon-launched space exploration MORE expensive and complicated than Earth-based exploration...

10:58 / 22.09.05

But for Earth-to-Moon transfers you can send smaller units which can be assembled into one larger unit on arrival at the Moon. Less energy would be expended overall (although I admit I am not sure of the maths on that one). That way you can, for instance, construct a much larger vessel for an on-ward journey towards Mars.

It all depends on what kind of materials can be manufactured on-site. We know that the Moon is low on certain chemicals such as hydrogen and carbon. So those would have to be transported from Earth. But one suggested solution to this would be to ensure that supply vessels only go one way and are designed to be broken down and utilised by the lunar colony.